I have it measured in a bod pod 3 times. Highest was 4.5% in winter and lowest in summer at 2.9%
Also have done it with calipers, but direct measure, sum of 8 skin folds (AIS process I think) and it was 27mm which was the lowest they had seen for 8 skinfolds.
At the same time, I get cold as soon as the temperature drops below 70f....

Here's one to skew the sample! 18.3% ;-)

mines about 7%. it fluctuates allot throughout the year and depends on how good I am with my diet. during peak summer season it will be below 4% never higher than 9%. Average men should be between 10-13%.

you should know that the equations of the skin fold measurements are based on data of cadavers. If I remember correctly, the number of the subjects was very low and the cadavers race was all white. Who knows how accurate those values really are when the measurements are done on people that do not fit the cadaver-study subject's description.

All body composition measurements bring a margin of error with them, the lower the relative amount of adipose tissue, the greater the error. bioelectrical impedance is greatly affected by hydration status, skin fold measurement depends on the sites measured and the person that measures it. Hydrostatic weighing is very accurate, yet one has to measure the lung volume and the subject has to exhale all the air during the measurement and limit movment.

I think that skin fold technique is only as accurate at the person taking the measurements. There are too many people out there that use skin calipers without even knowing the exact site of measurement. With all those variables I think it's diifficult to compare values. I think that body composition data helps to compare yourself to previous values.

Just remember that there is an optimal level of body fat (whatever that is...). Fat is important for several physiological reasons (energy, fat soluble vitamins, hormones, insulation, etc.). Too many people believe that a lower body fat will improve performance. While this might be true for most people, athletes consisting of too little adipose tissue can see reduced performance as a result.

anyway...even known it's an individual thing, here are my numbers: right now about 5-6%...I used to be as low as 3.8% but as a result got sick and started loosing hair (less fat is not always better!)



have fun @ training,



daniel

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

Average men should be between 10-12%? I would guess most pro athletes are 10-12%. At 10% you should have a very visible 6-pack, and very good definition. Most people will never see 10%BF. I've read many times that 10-12 is good for the average athlete, but not for the average male. I would guess that the average American male is about 18-19%. Is the 10-12 a suggested value? I'm not sure how realistic that is.

Getting down to 6-8% and that is drug-free bodybuilder look ... full of veins and muscle striations. The look is very different when not very much muscle is carried (as in endurance athletes). If you do a search on the net, you can see what different BF%'s look like. 10-12% for an "average" would be incredible, you'd have to be the most exercise/nutrition oriented society in history.

Calipers depend on the user's skill. They can be accurate or not. I have little doubt that many here are single digits ... it's the nature of the sport. The look as compared to strength athletes at the same BF% has to be night/day. I was single digits in college and I don't dig the "skeleton face" look (on myself). Many folks, typically not athletes, vastly underestimate their BF% ... by as much as 5-10%.

I'm 15% at 197 pounds, and would like to get to 10% but I won't go under 190. I worked too hard to get "not scrawny". I ain't going back. If anything I'd like to get to 205 @12-13% in the offseason.

Not arguing ... just discussing. I'm going to point that out every post.

----------------------------

Examples: 26% and 10%

Same dude at 5%

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Timing of this post is funny. Just yesterday, I received my new Tanita scale with body fat calculation, purchased for a nice price on eBay. It's a floor scale that calculates body fat by using a small electrical impulse sent through the body (apparently electricity travels faster through water/blood/muscle than fat) and calibrates it relative to weight, age, height, and athlete/non-athlete. I don't know how accurate it is, but they do sell well.

Anyway, I'm 142 pounds and 5.6% body fat @ 5'7". My weight is actually 10 pounds heavier than in my marathon running days 5 years ago, AND my body fat is 1-2% lower. The extra muscle came from biking and swimming. I don't think there's any hard and fast rule to ideal body fat for endurance athletes. My understanding is that most elite marathoners are 3-7%, but I may be wrong.

BTW, I actually bought the scale for my wife. She said she'd lose 10 pounds if I'd get a back wax. (She has to fulfill her bet first.) A wax of chest hair is not included; too bad, since I just might have a six pack hiding underneath, and we'll never know.

If you're a man and shave your hairy legs, you have no right to be laughing at me right now.

Those Tanita body fat scales are grossly inaccurate, at least for women. Plus they vary by 2% on a daily basis. My Tanita scale puts me at 18-21% body fat, but I'm actually at 11.5% (determined by Dexa scan - considered the gold standard, and confirmed with skin calipers). The scale seems a bit more accurate for men (when you program yourself as a male athlete) for some reason.

As far as averages, I read somewhere once that the average Master's swimmer has about 17-18% body fat.

TriDi

between 8-10% by the 8 folds test thing. i think tt's right, 10-12 isn't yer typical dude. mine was measured by the heavyweight crew coach, who said mine was one of the lower ones he's measured....but then, he does only measure heavyweight rowers. and i am barely a heavyweight....at 6'4", now all of 175.

Gordo wrote a well thoughtout response to a thread about lowest sustainable body fat.

http://www.coachgordo.com/...config.pl?read=46668

---

---

"your horse is too high" - tigerchik

Oh Good, I must be a slim Masters swimmer instead of a fat triathlete! Think I can only use that one away from the pool ;-(

---

"How bad can it be?" - SimpleS

I have that same body fat scale. It now measures me at 6.4% BF. Right. Not a chance. These scales are not totally useless. The numbers do go up and down as my fitness and weight vary, but these are not numbers you can take to the bank.

The number it gives you is a result of the impendence of electricity from one foot to the other. It DOES give you a good idea of how much water you have in your legs....that's why it reads much LOWER % body fat at night, and higher the next morning. Fluid leaks out to the interstitial spaces more readily, and returns to your vascular system more slowly when you are upright, compared to when you are lying down.

SO, take measurements at the same time each day, and it will give you an good idea of the TREND in which you are going. Also, be aware, that if your weight drops the same day your % body fat went up...it means you are DEHYDRATED! See how it works?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I work as a personal trainer and I noticed P2kman say that he measured himself for his bodyfat, I thought that doing that accurately would be next to impossible, so I got out the calipers and with the help of my girlfriend tried to measure my self and then have her repeat the measurements for me after my tissue had returned to normal. The two sets of measurements were at least 5mm, and one was 12 mm different from each other. Also a note on the body impedenance method of measureing body fat, I will agree that by and large they are inaccurate (heck, by and large me and the calipers are prone to error) but, if used for comparision of a single persons day to day bodyfat, it would make an acceptable tool for measuring progress. The way to get a decent day to day reading with one of these is to do it at the same time, and in as close to the same manner as possible every day. Such as first thing in the morning, before drinking or eating anything and before or after going to the bathroom but decide which one.

Jim

---

Jim

**Note above poster works for a retailer selling bikes and related gear*

hey tridi

does your scale have a setting on it for athletes, rather than just plain ol' folks? on my scale, if you calibrate my bod fat by regular folks metrics, i get a reading of 18% or so. when i put it on the athlete setting, it reads 10%, which is accurate based on my results from other methods. i guess althlete's store more water in their muscles, and the scale needs to account for that difference, so the body fat measurements come down as a consequence. on my scale, when i enter the user data, it gives a choice of male vs. female, athlete vs. non-athlete, etc. hope that might help?

---

http://www.kenyawilds.com/faculty.html

Yep...the aberrant body fat readings on my Tanita scale are based on a female athlete. It would be interesting to see what it read if I told it I was a male athlete. Maybe I'll try it just for kicks.

---

TriDi

My wife and I both use ours. I'm male (duh) and 6'3, she's 4'11 (though she claims 5'0). So, when I step on and it's left on her readings, I get a "59%". That'll wake ya up in the morning.*

I should leave my setting on, so she gets a "3.4%" reading. That'll be a shock for 7-month pregnant woman.

--------------------------------------

*Actually, I just noticed that when I get a 59% reading, it's when it set on default which if 3-feet tall. 3-feet 200 pounds ... I dunno what to say.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --